Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Ekanta]

Because what people like me and crossfire have posted is part of buddhadharma, whether you want to see it or not.

I just said I understand you and its part of Buddha-dharma.

It's not suggestible that one try to view one religion through the lens of another, if one wants to truly understand that religion.

Ok, you wanna play it rough? From now on I will regard you as rastafari.

 

[Breathe]

If I quote several sutras and the zen tradition how am I distorting the teaching? And what teaching are you refering to?
I understand very well why you (for example) write like you do, but its a mystery why several posters cant see that what I write is part of the buddhist tradition.

Same here. There are Tathagatagarbha sutras and there are understandings of "atman" in some forms of Buddhism and there are is at least one school which accepts other-emptiness as an essential -- not just "valid", but essential teaching, who find no contradiction between these teachings and the ones also held by Buddhists whose Dharma-wheel has not turned as many times.

 

[Breathe]

Here's where I think the problem is coming in. Buddhism teaches anatta-that there is no eternal, independent, ego-soul. What some people seem to be getting out of this, is that there is no such thing as being itself. That all this, ourselves, everything, is somehow just an illusion. The Buddha never denied that there was an existential self-what he denied was an independent eternal self. Our existential self is made up of the five aggregates and the eighteen sense bases.

How is this any different from many schools of Hinduism, though?

 

[crossfire]

How is this any different from many schools of Hinduism, though?

Well, Buddhism came from the Shramanic tradition and rejected Vedantic Brahminism, for one. The three fetters Stream-Entrant eradicates are views of self, doubt of the dhamma as they have tested it for themselves and found it to be true, and the clinging to rites and rituals.

We are lovingly referred to as nastika.

 

[Breathe]

Well, Buddhism came from the Shramanic tradition and rejected Vedantic Brahminism, for one. We are lovingly referred to as nastika.

I know this, but besides the Vedas?

 

[crossfire]

I know this, but besides the Vedas?

See my edit to add the three fetters the Sotapanna eradicates.
No caste system, either. Buddha even ordained nuns! Oh, the horror! :faint:

 

[Jainarayan]

The Buddha never denied that there was an existential self-what he denied was an independent eternal self.

How is this any different from many schools of Hinduism, though?

I don't think it is all that different. To me, this all screams Advaita (without the maya business... never could get my head wrapped around that). The ātman does not exist independently. I don't think it's correct either to say that Brahman has a cause. As Goldberry said about Tom Bombadil: "He is". Brahman is, simply is. Maybe a state, not a thing. Maybe that's the problem, we talk about things and not states.

 

[crossfire]

<...>
Maybe that's the problem, we talk about things and not states.

Bingo! You get a gold star!


{OK, that's the closest smiley available that fit a gold star}

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm universalist, so it works for me.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

How is this any different from many schools of Hinduism, though?

The many and various schools of Hinduism have one thing in common, acceptance of the Vedas as supreme teaching, even if there are many differing interpretations on exactly what the Vedas say.

In Buddhism, certain ideas were held as the basic, fundamental aspects of the religion, such as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence/Four Dharma Seals, and the Three Refuges and Five Precepts. Since the debate is about anatta, which is one of the Three Marks/Four Seals, it's important to note that it is one of the basic teachings of Buddhism, and trying to force it to say something it doesn't takes away from buddhadharma.

This is one of the reasons why syncretism is hard to do, especially when Buddhism is involved. Anatta is unique to Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, and it doesn't really fit well with other religions. It's not an easy teaching to either accept or understand, but it is what it is. While I don't have a problem with those who want to practice Buddhism and another religion simultaneously, saying that Buddhism does not teach something that it does, based on nothing more than one's own ideas and beliefs, is disingenuous. It would be the same if I tried to make people believe that Advaita teaches atheism, or Bakhti teaches there is no god or soul. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[crossfire]

The many and various schools of Hinduism have one thing in common, acceptance of the Vedas as supreme teaching, even if there are many differing interpretations on exactly what the Vedas say.

In Buddhism, certain ideas were held as the basic, fundamental aspects of the religion, such as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence/Four Dharma Seals, and the Three Refuges and Five Precepts. Since the debate is about anatta, which is one of the Three Marks/Four Seals, it's important to note that it is one of the basic teachings of Buddhism, and trying to force it to say something it doesn't takes away from buddhadharma.

This is one of the reasons why syncretism is hard to do, especially when Buddhism is involved. Anatta is unique to Buddhism, to the best of my knowledge, and it doesn't really fit well with other religions. It's not an easy teaching to either accept or understand, but it is what it is. While I don't have a problem with those who want to practice Buddhism and another religion simultaneously, saying that Buddhism does not teach something that it does, based on nothing more than one's own ideas and beliefs, is disingenuous. It would be the same if I tried to make people believe that Advaita teaches atheism, or Bakhti teaches there is no god or soul. It simply doesn't work that way.

Agreed.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

From Chapter 21 of the Shobogenzo:

Upon hearing the term &#8216;Buddha Nature&#8217;, many practitioners have
erroneously surmised It to be the same as the non-Buddhist &#8216;innate eternal self &#8217; of
the Shrenikans.3 This is because they have not yet become &#8216;such a person&#8217;,* or are
not in accord with their True Self, or have not met with a genuine Master. To no
avail, they take their mind, will, or consciousness, which are constantly on the
move like wind and fire, to be their perception and comprehension of their Buddha
Nature. Who has ever said that there is anything within Buddha Nature to perceive
or comprehend? Even though persons who have perceived and comprehended It
are Buddhas, Buddha Nature is beyond any thing we perceive or comprehend.
Even more, the perception that leads us to recognize Buddhas as persons who have
discerned It and know It is not perception as some people have erroneously
explained it, for this perception lies beyond the realm of their mind, which is ever-moving like wind and fire. Simply put, a couple of faces of a Buddha or an
Ancestor are what we perceive It to be.

Now, I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this, but it seems one of the great Zen masters of the Soto school would know a bit more than us about what he's talking about.

 

[Sees]

Personally I see it as the whole preconceptions thing that is being stripped away, a form of saying so and so is or isn't - because it's not exaxtly so. If the Buddha or later respected teachers teach something is neither positively true or negatively false then traditions and schools still tend to grasp one or the other and present it as authoritative dogma. Truth-claims and dogma for an experiential system of realizing and awakening, not believing or knowing, seem a slight bit retarded.

 

[crossfire]

I know this, but besides the Vedas?

See my edit to add the three fetters the Sotapanna eradicates.
No caste system, either. Buddha even ordained nuns! Oh, the horror! :faint:

Oh, Eightfold Path of right livelihood: no dealing in weapons, no dealing in human beings such as prostitution, slave-trade, or human trafficking, no dealing in meat, no dealing in intoxicants, no dealing in poisons. Oh, the horror! :thud:

 

[von bek]

You miss my argument. I am not disputing the fact that the chair (or any object for that matter) lacks inherent existence. I am asking whether Existence lacks inherent existence.

I think you may have missed my answer. To speak of existence without an object you posit as existing is fruitless. Existence is no more a thing than "fast" or "short".

I was trying to refute your claim that existence is a property of objects...
Let me repeat what I said, if Existence is the property of things then Existence's existence depends on (existing) objects (which is a contradiction), and an existing object can still exist without Existence (which is a contradiction).

No. Existence is not a thing. Do you think shortness exists independently of short objects? Does that even make sense? Does fast or slow mean anything without reference to an object?

 

[Sees]

If existence lacks inherent existence as a question is nonsensical.

Does a dog lack the characteristics of a dog?

 

[Breathe]

See my edit to add the three fetters the Sotapanna eradicates.
No caste system, either. Buddha even ordained nuns! Oh, the horror! :faint:

Oh, Eightfold Path of right livelihood: no dealing in weapons, no dealing in human beings such as prostitution, slave-trade, or human trafficking, no dealing in meat, no dealing in intoxicants, no dealing in poisons. Oh, the horror! :thud:

I'm not seeing much that doesn't also coincide with Hinduism.

 

[crossfire]

I'm not seeing much that doesn't also coincide with Hinduism.

Really?

 

[Breathe]

Really?

Yeah, really.

A lot of Buddhists have this idea of Hinduism from around the time of the Buddha, and in reality, it's much closer to Buddhism than many Buddhists realize.

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, really.

A lot of Buddhists have this idea of Hinduism from around the time of the Buddha, and in reality, it's much closer to Buddhism than many Buddhists realize.

Eradication of views of self? Eradication of clinging to rites and rituals? No caste system? Sorry, I don't see it.